SANZAR was born in 1996 when rugby turned pro. It’s goal was to provide a provincial Super Rugby tournament with teams from South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia.
SANZAAR was born in 2012 when the Jaguares from Argentina and the Sunwolves from Japan were added to Super Rugby.
It is one of the many major blunders made by the governing body through sheer greed that has had serious rugby ramifications throughout the southern hemisphere.
One of the banes of professional rugby is the excessive travel, and SANZAR added to the problem by expanding to countries that were far apart and removed from the axis.
The Heineken Trophy, basically the northern hemisphere equivalent to Super Rugby, has minimal travel – one of the longest flights being Dublin to Rome taking three hours ten minutes.
In Super Rugby, Auckland to Bloemfontein was a 21 hour 20 minute flight. To put that in perspective, Sydney to London is 21 hours 45 minutes.
And there were many other long flying hours just between South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
Adding Japan and Argentina dramatically increased the travel burden on players.
(AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)
Cape Town to Tokyo is 19 hours 45 minutes, Cape Town to Buenos Aires 18 hours 35 – and those times are just one way.
It’s too late to make any changes for 2018, the Jaguares and Sunwolves are locked in, and Australia has lost the Western Force thanks to an inept Rugby Australia.
By all means expand Super Rugby, but in the acceptable regions to minimise air travel.
Looking to 2019, the first thing Australia and New Zealand should do is flick South Africa, the country that keeps moving the Super Rugby goal posts, and bring in the three Pacific Islands countries as national teams.
There would be enough time to resurrect the Western Force, taking the Australian contingent back to five where it should be to join the already well-entrenched Kiwi five.
The third group will be Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga.
Super Rugby 2019 would look like this.
The Australian five play each other home and away – eight games.
Then they play the eight teams in the other two groups – home one year, away the next – eight games.
A totally fair 16 games.
The New Zealand five to do exactly the same for 16 games.
The Pacific Islanders play each other three times – two at home one year, two away the next – six games per team per season.
Then they play the five Australian and five Kiwi sides – split home one year, away the next – 10 games each.
That gives the Pacific Islanders 16 games in a season as well.
And everyone has played everyone.
At the completion off the round-robin, the top four on points overall qualify for the semis, with the senior team having the home ground advantage.
The winners play off for the decider, at the senior team’s home ground.
World Rugby to sponsor the Islanders in a tournament that will do more for them on the rugby stage than spasmodic end-of-year trips to the northern hemisphere.
What will South Africa do?
They keep threatening to play in the northern hemisphere, so here’s their chance.
Cape Town to London is 11 hours 55, to Rome 13 hours 50 – less time than many of their Super Rugby travel responsibilities over the years.
What about Japan and Argentina?
They can play against the likes of USA and Canada, where they can compete on more of a level playing field.
(AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)
Which brings me to the Rugby Championship.
By all means include South Africa, but flick Argentina.
The Pumas are as big a blight on the Rugby Championship as Italy is to the Six Nations.
The proof is in their track records.
The Pumas have played 33 Rugby Championship games – won three, lost 29, drawn one.
Points for – 576
Against – 1096.
Deficit – 520.
Italy’s Six-Nations stats are a embarrassment since they were admitted in 2000.
Played 90 – won 12, lost 77, drawn one.
Points for – 1289.
Against – 2993.
Deficit – 1704.
Italy has finished last in 12 of their 18 seasons, finished second last four times, and third last twice.
So there must be a change in rugby governance.
It’s high time Australia and New Zealand rugby combined to work on the KISS formula.
Keep it simple stupid.
And the code will prosper, not die on the vine.
Sergio
Guest
Hello David, I am Italian (thus please forgive my English). I understand your point, but, alas, it's flawed by the view that rugby union must be substantially confined to the British Empire plus France at best. Basically you confuse the effect with the cause. Rugby union, at least at male level, has kept the same balance of power since the times of the British Empire. I am not sure that the historical IRB nations have actually favoured the growth of the emerging countries or were rather interested to their audience. Italy is the second biggest country of the Six Nations in terms of population and it's very unlikely that we cannot put a team together. See the women's game: Australia has played 49 matches since their inception in 1994, the United States won the first World Cup in 1991, Italy has the 7th ranking in the world, has won 3 European Championships and has reached twice the 3rd place in the Six Nations, and has only 3 Whitewash in the tournament; South Africa is irrelevant at women's level, Argentina doesn't even exist. Canada reached the world cup's final in 2014. Yes, New Zealand women are by far the best national team in the world and England are runners-up, but at their shoulders the hierarchy is not influenced by the imperial past of the United Kingdom. Plus, can I add a small consideration? Italian rugby reached its best in the very last years of amateurism. Then professionalism widened the gap between countries that could ensure financial resources to rugby and the ones like ours in which 9 euros out of 10 go to soccer. In my opinion rugby union was not ready to switch to professionalism and, said roughly, it is not fit for it. It should stay as amateurish.
NaBUru38
Guest
"What about Japan and Argentina? They can play against the likes of USA and Canada, where they can compete on more of a level playing field." Last year, the Jaguares claimed away wins over the Waratahs and Rebels.
Charcoal
Guest
Totally agree GT. While my preference is to develop an Australian domestic competition based on an upgraded NRC played over a longer home and away season with FTA exposure, unlike the current limited format, I would support an Aus/NZ/Pacific Nation competition, which is all within a time friendly zone. If NZ isn't interested, then so be it, we should do it our own way. Even with the Super Rugby broadcast revenues, Australian Rugby is going backwards anyway, so what's the point of it? It's time to chart a different course, even if there may be some risks involved. Do we have to continue to flagellate ourselves for the sake of receiving more money, when the current Super Rugby format is actually having a negative impact on Rugby's fortunes in Australia? I couldn't care less what NZ and SA want to do. We have to look after our own interests first. Nobody else will. Having said that, the ARU/RA has only themselves to blame for the predicament the code now finds itself in. In the immediate pre-professional era, Australian Rugby was on a high and it's not coincidental that it was during a period when there was a high participation rate in the Public School system, in Sydney at least anyway. The NSW Combined High Schools' representative teams regularly flogged the combined GPS teams in their annual clashes. It got to the point where GPS called it off. The current CHS Rugby competition is a pale shadow of what it once was and there has since been an over reliance on the private school system for recruitment. Even that is now being challenged by AFL, League and soccer. They dropped the ball.
Sterling
Guest
Sheek, Involving Japan in a champ cup does add to travel, but with the top 2 from each NRC, NPC, Currie, Top League and ARE equivalent it only comes to 10 teams. Which, in a single round robin would mean 4 or 5 away games overseas. So about the same as current SR but without the 2 or 3 away games in your own country. When it comes to competitiveness, then yes, one for one the Top League teams would struggle, as would the NRC teams. But the top 2 wouldn't be exposed so easily.
Bluesfan
Guest
I'm sorry - but the world has moved on. Professional Sports is just that - Professional - so you need to generate real income to be able to pay your players. If you can't generate the income to cover your expenses - you will fold. It's unpleasant and it's not fair - but that is the reality of running a business - which is what a Super Franchise is. But let's look at your idea: 1. Who exactly is going to run a Pacific Franchise at a loss for a number of years and more importantly can they afford to do so? 2. Once you have the business up and running - how out of the Island Economies will you be able to generate the income required to meet your ongoing costs e.g. Player Salaries? In short you can talk about all you want about not running things for a profit etc - but the hard fact is that professional sports is a business and accordingly needs to be run at a profit or very least breakeven.
richard
Guest
It won't happen,for the reasons already mentioned.If SA were to leave SANZAAR,it would be disastrous for NZ A TransTasman comp with maybe Japan thrown in? No thanks.And I tell you now,the NZ public won't wear it.And Tew understands this.
GusTee
Roar Pro
No Suzy. South Africa's compliance was little more than window dressing coupled with an agenda to test the NH waters.
GusTee
Roar Pro
David I have written to members of the ARU Board & Mr Forrest several times over the past year to suggest and motivate various key elements of what you have so eloquently set out in this article. It simply beggars belief that the gatekeepers of the Australian game cannot see the wood for the trees in this regard. Question: Why is it so hard for the ARU/RA/WHORU to see the obvious? Answer in 3 words: ego ego ego. Imagine how strong an Aus/NZ/Pacific Nation competition could become especially with some financial under pinning in its formative years by Mr Forrest. Why do we have to suffer the total lack of vision that has flooded our rugby landscape?
Fionn
Guest
Only one South African team has ever won SR (the Bulls), and the last was way back in 2010. Since then two different Australian teams have won and the Brumbies narrowly lost a final to the Chiefs in NZ. The Brumbies have also won the comp twice also. 2017 was a bad year, but otherwise, the Aussies have been better than the Saffas overall. If the Kiwis think that then what they think isn't reflective of reality.
BeastieBoy
Guest
The guys writing above are correct. NZ don't rate Australia above SA. However the solution for Australia is a comp in our timezone. What is the solution? 1. Get competitive quick. Get NZ coaches and players that will make us so. It will have the effect that NZ will then support us to transition as we are helping them train their back up All Blacks. 2. Get Pathways in place for Public Schools so they can increase the depth 3. Remove the ARU Board in mass 4. Remove the ARU tax on juniors playing Rugby 5. Introduce Summer Sevens programs for schools and Winter ones for small schools that don't have the numbers for a 15's team 6. Select players from the Sydney and Brisbane comps for Super Rugby based on form and not age. 7. encourage players to play in France to show more of a professional pathway
double agent
Guest
Brilliant idea regarding the naming of the NRC sides. As it stands now they are meaningless and will never attract many fans. Linking them to Super rugby teams gives them status.
double agent
Guest
SA and Oz fairly even since 93. Money and convenience I think would be bigger issues.
Fionn
Guest
Not it isn't Julius or Charging Rhino. New Zealand and South Africa are permanently stuck with us if they want to play one another for purely geographical reasons.
sheek
Guest
Bluesfan, i'm not an economist & I appreciate the game is now professional. i also know if you do things for money, you will ultimately fail. There has to be a higher meaning to why you do something. Profit, whether personal or corporate, is usually only a short-term gain. I fear my suggestion might require a short-term shortfall, but the key is building sustainable domestic structures from the ground up. This is something Australian rugby has failed to largely do. We have always thrown out the mantra: "We punch above our weight". This is probably the worst perception we could have, because it made us complacent, relying on a continuous stream of 'golden generations', which eventually dried up. Then what? NZ & SA have the structures, although SA is held back by non-sport issues. England & France have the structures, although their on-field record shows it doesn't necessarily guarantee regular success, but it puts you in the administrative game across a band of issues. Most people like to say" "Everyone loves a winner". If the Wallabies & provinces start winning, the fans will flock back. Sure, but for how long? The thing about winning is that for every winner, there must always be many more losers. You can't be always a winner. So the idea is to build structures & a following that will stick, through lean times as well as good times.
Etepeus
Guest
I like the concept we have now Everybody can play NPC The best from NPC combine to make Super teams. The best from the super teams go on to be All Blacks The way the competitions centralise the talent keeps raising the quality of play. But agree 5 union process still works as long as we can pool the best talent from other teams to raise standards. We dont usually see players go from NPC straight to All Blacks anymore.
Jeff Morris
Guest
Why not go with 5 domestic leagues, with a Champions Cup for qualifiers, same as Europe does? The intercontinental games would be limited to the Champions Cup (and a consolation cup the same weeks for non-qualifiers), cutting down on travel but still having some intercontinental games each year.
I don't think push comes to shove is the issue, if SA rugby continues to freefall, New Zealand might flick them purely because what SA rugby used to bring doesn't exist anymore
Fionn
Guest
Sheek, The Reds topped the table in the 1996 Super 12 season, with the Brumbies coming 5th, and in 1997 the Brumbies came 2nd and made the final. Struggled? Really? You're right about the fact that we lost our way in the mid-2000s. I actually think that Australia was on the way back to being perennially in the top 2 and playing really positive rugby from 2011-14, but that all changed when we lost Link and we have regressed hugely since.
sheek
Roar Guru
They would be as far as the Islanders are concerned.
sheek
Roar Guru
Steve, The first two years of super rugby were a struggle for Australia. Then MacQueen had an epiphany & decided to trial Larkham at no.10. That one decision had a positive knock-on effect to a lot of other things. Yes, the 90s firstly with Dwyer then MacQueen, Australia was considered at the forefront of rugby thinking. But somewhere in the mid-2000s we lost our way & have never recovered to date.